I said it in the last thread when it turned out to be misinformation. The real problem for unions is everyone is willing to believe stories like this apparently true and factual one.

Anyone who has had to deal with unions knows how irrational and corrupt they can be. The die has been cast, and ironically enough for that phrase, it was union work that destroyed their formerly glorious reputations.

If unions want to regain their respect and clout they have decades of housecleaning and refocusing to do. Until then they're rarely more than obstructionists lining the pockets of their leadership at the expense of the union brother masses. Just like every other Communist organization.

I work in insurance talking with a lot of small time contractors. Don't generally deal with unions, but from the people I've dealt with I bet I can tell you how this happened, and it's not some bullshiat omg unions are evil thing. There's a lot of companies who chase the storms, and since they have the manpower, tools, and experience to deal with disaster relief, they get hired. Unfortunately, there's enough of them nowadays that a lot of the local guys are getting less or none of the recovery work, and it's creating a lot of bad blood. I wouldn't be at all surprised if an organized collection of local workers tried to force their 'share' of the work. It's a disaster, their home and neighborhood is farked, fixing it is within their job description, and the money instead of going to them and helping them get back on their feet is going out of state. I don't know which method is actually better for disaster recovery, I can personally understand local governments and associations giving the contracts to people who specialize in that sort of work, but for instance if you're a tree trimmer, ain't no one getting their hedges manicured right now and there is a whole lot of work clearing limbs and felling dead trees. Sucks to be benched while some out of towner is taking your lunch.

Enigmamf:fickenchucker: The die has been cast, and ironically enough for that phrase, it was union work that destroyed their formerly glorious reputations.

When have unions ever been highly regarded by the majority or by conservatives? For decades they were treated practically as communists. Heck, they still are.

Unions grew from the need to push back against corporate abuses. And for many years post-"The Jungle", there was a decently positive national opinion of unions. But then they won the basics we all enjoy, like a shorter work week, health insurance, etc. and realized their only reason for existence was to obstruct the advancement of technology. It went downhill over the course of my lifetime, to the point no-one really cares about unions anymore.

Unions have themselves to blame for the widely-publicized links to the mafia, featherbedding, and insane protections of bad employees based on seniority, rather than skill level.

So, those crews from FL, GA, AL, SC, NC, etc. who go to NJ or NY, - just how much higher a wage do you think they are probably receiving (inclusive of overtime, etc.) than they would receive if they were working in their home states? (My guess is that they will receive a salary at least 25%-50% greater than they would receive doing the same work back in Biloxi, Greensboro or Tallahassee.)

Now, who spent the time, money and effort to negotiate those higher wages? The local NY/NJ unions did. So why is it so outrageous for them to at least seek to recoup some of those costs from what amount to "free rider" outside, non-union types who are all to happy to avail themselves of that much higher wage?

You think those crews are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? They are doing it because they know they will be cashing in with a much higher paycheck (due primarily to the difference in the prevailing wages between the two regions). Again, I just don't see what is so outrageous about the local unions trying to recover a small fraction of the cost they incurred in securing those higher prevailing wages in the first place.

Charging shiatloads of money for food and fuel after a disaster is wrong because it's gouging.

But keeping labor prices high thanks to government-legislated monopolies after the same disaster is okay?

Fark union apologists. explain this.

Goods vs services.

When paying someone for a particular service, you get what you pay for:Exhibit A: Over-the phone PC tech support - would you rather deal with the $30/hr union worker who speaks American English or the sub-minimum wage guy from India who tells you to do the needful?Exhibit B: Night-Ladies - would you rather spend an hour or two with a lady who looks like she understands the concept of personal hygiene but charges $1000 for full service; or the lady who looks like she hasn't bathed in a week, probably has more social diseases than she does teeth, but only charges $10?Exhibit C: Automotive mechanical work - would you rather get a radiator hose installed at Pep Boys for $50 (with a warranty and guarantee), Bubba's Oil And Tires for $20 (no warranty or guarantee), or Sam's Club for $19 (no warranty or guarantee, except for the guarantee that your money will be used to help Walmart exploit Chinese slave labor)?

Think about which you would choose in the above scenarios and why, and then consider choosing between having power lines reconnected by $30/hr local union workers who'll still be in town after the job's done, or by $9/hr non-union guys from out-of-state who'll go back to their home the minute they finish "fixing" the problem.

/disclaimer: I am neither an over-the-phone PC tech support guy, a night-lady, an automotive mechanic nor a power line technician//I've never had to go to Pep Boys more than once to fix a problem on any car I've ever had, nor have I ever had a new problem pop up immediately after they fix the old one

BooBoo23:And that's fine. He can drop his rates at the truck stop men's room if he wants to, but I'm not sure that asking the linemen to take a pay cut right now is such a good idea.

Yeah, I'm really not sure what the point of that is either.

There's a reason linesman make good money. Because one slip up can kill them, their crew, and cause a lot of property damage. All while, (at least in this case) working ridiculous hours to ensure the power comes back on.

Electricity isn't like plumbing where someone who doesn't really know what they're doing can kind of muddle through. You want people who know exactly what they're doing, and you want them to be well paid to attract top talent

Another thing people should realize is that when out of staters come in to help things like this, they're not doing it as employees. They're doing it as independent contractors and they end up costing way, way more than the regular workers since the out of staters have the power companies over a barrel.

That happened here after Snowmageddon a couple of years ago. There weren't enough guys to fix all the damage quick enough, so a bunch of people came in from out of state and ended up charging more for their wages than the regular employees.

And I got nothing here. I'm Long Island, I'm union, and I'm just farking disgusted by the idea. I don't know if it's true or not because I'm CSEA and not IBEW, but I can't begin to imagine anyone... yeah I really got nothing.

Anyone turning anybody away needs to walk down my motherfarking block into ground zero of this shiatstorm and watch people throwing out their entire farking lives. See how fast your union dues matter then, dipshiat.

LowbrowDeluxe:I work in insurance talking with a lot of small time contractors. Don't generally deal with unions, but from the people I've dealt with I bet I can tell you how this happened, and it's not some bullshiat omg unions are evil thing. There's a lot of companies who chase the storms, and since they have the manpower, tools, and experience to deal with disaster relief, they get hired. Unfortunately, there's enough of them nowadays that a lot of the local guys are getting less or none of the recovery work, and it's creating a lot of bad blood. I wouldn't be at all surprised if an organized collection of local workers tried to force their 'share' of the work. It's a disaster, their home and neighborhood is farked, fixing it is within their job description, and the money instead of going to them and helping them get back on their feet is going out of state. I don't know which method is actually better for disaster recovery, I can personally understand local governments and associations giving the contracts to people who specialize in that sort of work, but for instance if you're a tree trimmer, ain't no one getting their hedges manicured right now and there is a whole lot of work clearing limbs and felling dead trees. Sucks to be benched while some out of towner is taking your lunch.

That and you just don't let every single work crew who decides to show up go to work on your electrical equipment... No matter how wide spread a disaster is, there's an upper limit on the number of crews they're going to want to be working at once just from a logistical and management position alone, much less questions over pay rates and qualifications.

When paying someone for a particular service, you get what you pay for:Exhibit A: Over-the phone PC tech support - would you rather deal with the $30/hr union worker who speaks American English or the sub-minimum wage guy from India who tells you to do the needful?Exhibit B: Night-Ladies - would you rather spend an hour or two with a lady who looks like she understands the concept of personal hygiene but charges $1000 for full service; or the lady who looks like she hasn't bathed in a week, probably has more social diseases than she does teeth, but only charges $10?Exhibit C: Automotive mechanical work - would you rather get a radiator hose installed at Pep Boys for $50 (with a warranty and guarantee), Bubba's Oil And Tires for $20 (no warranty or guarantee), or Sam's Club for $19 (no warranty or guarantee, except for the guarantee that your money will be used to help Walmart exploit Chinese slave labor)?

Think about which you would choose in the above scenarios and why, and then consider choosing between having power lines reconnected by $30/hr local union workers who'll still be in town after the job's done, or by $9/hr non-union guys from out-of-state who'll go back to their home the minute they finish "fixing" the problem.

/disclaimer: I am neither an over-the-phone PC tech support guy, a night-lady, an automotive mechanic nor a power line technician//I've never had to go to Pep Boys more than once to fix a problem on any car I've ever had, nor have I ever had a new problem pop up immediately after they fix the old one

Paying people more money doesn't result in better quality. I supervised six union electricians and eight union mechanics and let me t ...

Charging shiatloads of money for food and fuel after a disaster is wrong because it's gouging.

But keeping labor prices high thanks to government-legislated monopolies after the same disaster is okay?

Fark union apologists. explain this.

They can't. Most union guys are dipshiats who can barely read a blueprint

Down here, in New Orleans, I work for the local union as an apprentice electrician. It is a right to work state, yet we are still making gobs of money for our unionized shop contractors. We are making our contractors so much money, that they agree to pay us a premium rate. The free market has spoken, and we have collectively negotiated a contract with many different contractors that benefited both parties sufficiently.

We unionized electricians are paid a premium wage, and it's not because we can sit on our asses all day. We get paid because we are what the market has decided our quality is worth. If the contractor sees that our work is shoddy, sub par, slow, or overpriced, they wouldn't sign the contract at all.

You can lie, and spew bullshiat about the union thugs, or slugs, or whatever horseshiat you can come up with. You cant deny that we are worth premium pay, by the fact that the market has decided to pay what we negotiated for,. Premium service is premium pay.

And why shouldn't I be in the union? My wages will be higher, I have access to legal representation for my law-given rights, health care, retirement plans, job security, and the ability to travel to any state and canada, walk into a hall, and get a job there. That means when I have to evacuate from the next hurricane, I will be working that same week, in another part of the country. We emphasize quality and efficiency, because we know that we have to make the contractor money, or they'll go nonunion in short order.

So tell me, what exactly have the unions done to you guys, that piss you off so much?Nonunion shops don't even provide health insurance in my area.

gryf:Unions are awful. They keep the unemployable employed. And, yes; I work at a union shop. We collectively want to kill our rep on principle. While hoping we can each get back our $1,200 in yearly dues. I need a farking drink.

cefm:How exactly would this have been enforced? The out-of state crews sign up with the utility, and the utility gives them orders and pays their invoices - the IBEW is not involved. They're free to take it up with the utility itself, but their letters aren't worth the paper they're printed on

IBEW probably has a exclusive agreement with the Utilities so in order to work in their areas you have to have an agreement with IBEW. They waive these agreements in extreme emergencies. As of Monday when this letter was sent, the storm hadn't caused any damage yet and the emergency wasn't yet determined. Had the storm caused minor damage this agreement would have been in effect as it normally is.

And I can send a letter to Santa Claus demanding a hot-oil massage froma circa 1970 Raquelle Welch, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

How exactly would this have been enforced? The out-of state crews sign up with the utility, and the utility gives them orders and pays their invoices - the IBEW is not involved. They're free to take it up with the utility itself, but their letters aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Charging shiatloads of money for food and fuel after a disaster is wrong because it's gouging.

But keeping labor prices high thanks to government-legislated monopolies after the same disaster is okay?

Fark union apologists. explain this.

Okay, so fuel is sold at a prevailing cost, with a deviation of around 4% in a several hundred square mile area. A storm hits and knocks out power to a bunch of gas stations. Only one station still has power. They're still buying tankers at wholesale prevailing cost. But then they jack the price to the consumer up to 20%, above retail price since the people have no where else to go. That's gouging.

The linesmen that come up from Florida are earning prevailing wage while in New York. As in, that's already what the labor in New York costs. They're not increasing the price of labor because of the storm. That's not gouging, in fact it's the exact opposite.

They're not turning anyone away, they're saying that any non-member coming in that benefits from the union's negotiation of wages has to pay dues on wages earned. If a linesmen from Florida is so anti-union that he won't pay 1% to the IBEW for the pay bump, he should just stay home. If the Floridian utilities are so anti-union that they refuse to withhold the 1% as required by contract, they can refuse the big emergency dollars from the local utility.

No one is doing this because they want to "fix the place up." The utilities out West and down South are sending workers because the local utilities in the devastated areas are paying big, big bucks for extra help. The linesmen are coming up because they're making big money on overtime for this.

Aarontology:Another thing people should realize is that when out of staters come in to help things like this, they're not doing it as employees. They're doing it as independent contractors and they end up costing way, way more than the regular workers since the out of staters have the power companies over a barrel.

That happened here after Snowmageddon a couple of years ago. There weren't enough guys to fix all the damage quick enough, so a bunch of people came in from out of state and ended up charging more for their wages than the regular employees.

You mean the people who have to travel across state lines to the job site, and don't get to eat or sleep at home are getting paid more? That's terrible.

Charging shiatloads of money for food and fuel after a disaster is wrong because it's gouging.

But keeping labor prices high thanks to government-legislated monopolies after the same disaster is okay?

Fark union apologists. explain this.

Goods vs services.

When paying someone for a particular service, you get what you pay for:Exhibit A: Over-the phone PC tech support - would you rather deal with the $30/hr union worker who speaks American English or the sub-minimum wage guy from India who tells you to do the needful?Exhibit B: Night-Ladies - would you rather spend an hour or two with a lady who looks like she understands the concept of personal hygiene but charges $1000 for full service; or the lady who looks like she hasn't bathed in a week, probably has more social diseases than she does teeth, but only charges $10?Exhibit C: Automotive mechanical work - would you rather get a radiator hose installed at Pep Boys for $50 (with a warranty and guarantee), Bubba's Oil And Tires for $20 (no warranty or guarantee), or Sam's Club for $19 (no warranty or guarantee, except for the guarantee that your money will be used to help Walmart exploit Chinese slave labor)?

Think about which you would choose in the above scenarios and why, and then consider choosing between having power lines reconnected by $30/hr local union workers who'll still be in town after the job's done, or by $9/hr non-union guys from out-of-state who'll go back to their home the minute they finish "fixing" the problem.

/disclaimer: I am neither an over-the-phone PC tech support guy, a night-lady, an automotive mechanic nor a power line technician//I've never had to go to Pep Boys more than once to fix a problem on any car I've ever had, nor have I ever had a new problem pop up immediately after they fix the old one

You're assuming that unions are consumer protection organizations. They are not, their purpose is to secure a good wage for their members. Being a union member is not the same as being experienced, licensed, and bonded.

angryjd:Are the people on this page saying unions don't actually do this? Methinks they have never had any exposure to unions...

Or maybe your only idea of unions comes from wing-nut blogs? It's kind of a stupid claim considering that the workers are there temporarily and there is no chance of union workers being laid off due to lack of work. So, it's an implausible and stupid claim.